I run bitdefender free as my backup scanner and I have had enjoyed having it. I would like to see the scanning speed improve personally. I run NOD as my primary so I'm used to having super fast scanning.

The detection rates are very good with bitdefender and it is relatively easy to use.

I used it a year ago and it missed 3 trojans that KAV did detect, so I would stay away from it, it also doesn´t have realtime protection and the GUI is unhandy, so if you want a good free AV/AT I would recommend AntiVir.

Another vote for BitDefender free! The scanning speed is the worst I've seen; on my box a scan can take anything up to 2 hours (Make sure you turn off your resident AV!). What makes BD worth it is the detection, which I think is very,very good.

I used it a year ago and it missed 3 trojans that KAV did detect, so I would stay away from it, it also doesn´t have realtime protection and the GUI is unhandy, so if you want a good free AV/AT I would recommend AntiVir.

Click to expand...

I think you'll find that many products miss malware that Kav (etc) detect, I also doubt that Antivir will be alot better. Another fact to bear in mind is that in the year since you used it last things have progressed.

I use BitDefender as my sole antivirus on my XP box and have done so for over a year. I think it is excellent. It scans FAST. NOD32 is MUCH MUCH slower in scanning. NOD32 takes forever and brings my fast 3.4 GHz, 2MB RAM box to its knees. Bit Defender is not nearly as fast as F-Prot but it is reasonably fast and quite snappy on right click demand scan, although again not nearly as fast as F-Prot, but much faster than NOD32 which has gone from being the lightest and fastest AV to one of the most bloated and slowest.

I use BitDefender as my sole antivirus on my XP box and have done so for over a year. I think it is excellent. It scans FAST. NOD32 is MUCH MUCH slower in scanning. NOD32 takes forever and brings my fast 3.4 GHz, 2MB RAM box to its knees. Bit Defender is not nearly as fast as F-Prot but it is reasonably fast and quite snappy on right click demand scan, although again not nearly as fast as F-Prot, but much faster than NOD32 which has gone from being the lightest and fastest AV to one of the most bloated and slowest.

Click to expand...

Hi Mele20,

When was the last time you used NOD32? NOD is still fast on my end.
It even runs good on an old PIII 500.

I know that the detection rate of BitDefender is very good, but I don't like to have always running a service because BD requires it, and because the on-demand scanner takes a lot of time and resources...

I use BitDefender as my sole antivirus on my XP box and have done so for over a year. I think it is excellent. It scans FAST. NOD32 is MUCH MUCH slower in scanning. NOD32 takes forever and brings my fast 3.4 GHz, 2MB RAM box to its knees. Bit Defender is not nearly as fast as F-Prot but it is reasonably fast and quite snappy on right click demand scan, although again not nearly as fast as F-Prot, but much faster than NOD32 which has gone from being the lightest and fastest AV to one of the most bloated and slowest.

Click to expand...

I agree with Stan. I have NOD32 with the max settings and it scans my 80Gb hard drive in under 20 minutes. I only have 512Mb RAM and a 1.2GHz AMD Proc. I use Bitdefender as my backup scanner and it takes twice as long to scan the same thing as NOD does.

I think you might have something configured improperly
None of the users I have sold NOD32 to have had any speed issues.

Hmmm...

As far as having to run the service for bitdefender to work (which it does) I just set it to manual and start it up when I need to update or scan. Just go to Run and type "Services.msc" and it will take you straight to the services. Kind of a pain I know, but not that difficult.

I haven't tried NOD32 recently. So perhaps it has changed since I last had it. But I was disappointed back then in how slow it became with the HTTP scanner on and even with that off the full system scans tripled in time taken. It just wasn't the old NOD32 at all. But perhaps that has changed and it isfaster and lighter now. Would be sort of unusual since most software gets more bloated as time goes by...but maybe NOD32 is an exception. I can't say how it is today.

I haven't tried NOD32 recently. So perhaps it has changed since I last had it. But I was disappointed back then in how slow it became with the HTTP scanner on and even with that off the full system scans tripled in time taken. It just wasn't the old NOD32 at all. But perhaps that has changed and it isfaster and lighter now. Would be sort of unusual since most software gets more bloated as time goes by...but maybe NOD32 is an exception. I can't say how it is today.

Click to expand...

Do you think it might be a bit disingenuous to keep putting down
an AV you haven't tried in over a year?

I have NOD32 with the max settings and it scans my 80Gb hard drive in under 20 minutes. I only have 512Mb RAM and a 1.2GHz AMD Proc. I use Bitdefender as my backup scanner and it takes twice as long to scan the same thing as NOD does.

Click to expand...

Surely it is the amount of data (and especially compressed data) that should determine scan time, not hard disk size?

I use BitDefender as my sole antivirus on my XP box and have done so for over a year. I think it is excellent. It scans FAST. NOD32 is MUCH MUCH slower in scanning. NOD32 takes forever and brings my fast 3.4 GHz, 2MB RAM box to its knees. Bit Defender is not nearly as fast as F-Prot but it is reasonably fast and quite snappy on right click demand scan, although again not nearly as fast as F-Prot, but much faster than NOD32 which has gone from being the lightest and fastest AV to one of the most bloated and slowest.

Do you think it might be a bit disingenuous to keep putting down
an AV you haven't tried in over a year?

Click to expand...

Maybe. Maybe not. I'm not in the habit of trying AV, or any other software, again that has let me down once. I have no interest in trying NOD32 again. It still has that HTTP scanner which is unnecessary and just bloats it up. Most of them have a bunch of unnecessary junk. I just wish Frisk would put up version 4 of F-Prot (and not junk it up in the process). One of the great things about F-Prot has been no email scanner. If they would just fix the GUI for XP...I like BD free because it is just an on demand scanner...but a great one. I have ProcessGuard to defend against rootkits and the like.

Yes, I know that AV´s can´t always catch everything, but still it´s hard to not loose trust in a product if it fails on you. And besides AntiVir is way better than Bitdefender Free, I think we can all agree on that.

I tried BD free for a little while some time ago, but I removed it for a different reason other than its speed. Although now I cannot remember what the actual file in BD free was, but when using BD free my firewall was always bringing to my attention that it was always wanting to 'phone home'. [not just for the updates !] Maybe it has changed since then, but thats why I stopped using it.

Yes, I know that AV´s can´t always catch everything, but still it´s hard to not loose trust in a product if it fails on you. And besides AntiVir is way better than Bitdefender Free, I think we can all agree on that.

Please understand that antivirus solutions are just that . Because Bit Defender missed some trojans means nothing . KAV is trying to add trojan protection into there AV and has done a good job . But , it also gives more fp s . Bit Defender free , for me , stinks . Alot of people like it . I do not . I do not believe it is as good as others think it is either . I will not mention other AV solutions . Only comment on BD . In my opinion , BD is fine as a BACKUP . I would not use as my # 1 . Honestly , I would not use it as a back up but , I think it is ok for most home users .